Imagine being a college basketball senior, dreaming of one last shot at glory, only to be left in limbo by a rule change that might never come. That’s the harsh reality for players like Braden Smith, the Big Ten Preseason Player of the Year, who could lose their chance at a fifth season of eligibility due to the NCAA’s delayed ‘5-in-5’ rule. This proposal, which would allow players five seasons of play within five years while eliminating traditional redshirting, has been shrouded in uncertainty, leaving coaches, players, and recruits in a state of confusion.
But here’s where it gets controversial: While the rule aims to provide players with more opportunities, it could inadvertently shrink roster spots for incoming high school recruits, forcing them to seek alternatives like junior colleges or lower-division programs. And this is the part most people miss—the ripple effect on player development models, like Purdue’s successful redshirt strategy with Trey Kaufman-Renn, who became an All-American candidate after sitting out a year. Will such developmental pathways become a thing of the past?
At the recent Big Ten Media Days in Chicago, coaches expressed frustration over the lack of clarity. Nebraska’s Fred Hoiberg summed it up: ‘You hear something different every week.’ Minnesota’s Niko Medved added that for current seniors to benefit, the rule would need approval before the football season ends—a timeline that seems increasingly unlikely. Most coaches now expect implementation no earlier than 2026-27, leaving this year’s seniors in a precarious position.
Here’s the kicker: If the rule isn’t enacted soon, top seniors like Smith and UCLA’s Donovan Dent will exhaust their eligibility without the option of a fifth year. This uncertainty also complicates recruiting decisions, as coaches like Maryland’s Buzz Williams pointed out. ‘Does the rule apply to the team I have now?’ he asked. ‘That would dictate who I should or shouldn’t be recruiting.’
The proposed model would revolutionize player development by eliminating redshirting as we know it. Currently, coaches have just two scrimmages to decide if a player will redshirt—a decision that’s final for the season. Iowa’s Ben McCollum called it ‘nonsensical,’ while Purdue’s Matt Painter criticized the change for giving players more reasons to leave early. ‘I want to give them opportunities to stay and grow,’ he said.
But is this a step toward fairness, or a recipe for chaos? Michigan State’s Tom Izzo supported standardized rules, but others worry about the long-term implications. Michigan’s Dusty May questioned, ‘What’s the right cutoff to not be on a college campus?’ as the rule could set a precedent for even longer eligibility periods.
For now, coaches are left to navigate this uncertainty, balancing high school recruiting with the possibility of retaining fifth-year seniors. The NCAA’s slow administrative process makes rapid enactment unlikely, despite speculation it could align with football’s transfer portal window in January. This limbo affects everything from scholarship allocations to NIL budget planning, leaving the entire Division I landscape in flux.
So, what do you think? Is the ‘5-in-5’ rule a fair opportunity for players, or does it unfairly disadvantage incoming recruits? Should the NCAA prioritize clarity for current seniors, or focus on long-term standardization? Let us know in the comments—this debate is far from over.
